click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121227
20121227
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. there was a very heated debate. congress passed the fisa amendments act of 2008, and that was to replace the warrantless wiretapping program with new authorities for the government to collect the phone calls and emails of those believed to be foreigners outside the united states. now, the centerpiece of the fisa amendments act, mr. president, is a provision that is now section 702 of the fisa statute. section 702 is the provision that gave the government new authorities to collect the communications of people who are believed to be foreigners outside the united states. and this was different than the original fisa statute. unlike the traditional fisa authorities and unlike law enforcement wiretapping authorities, section 702 of the fisa amendments act does not involve obtaining individual warrants. instead, it allows the government to get what's called a programmatic warrant, lasts for an entire year, and authorizes the government to collect a potentially large number of phone calls and e-mails with no requirement that the senders or recipients be connected to terrorism, espionage, the t
should understand so it can be debated. if the court reaches an interpretation that congress is uncomfortable, we should change that. but of course we can't change that not knowing what the interpretation is because the interpretation is secret. so we are certainly constrained from having the type of debate that our nation was founded on, an open discussion of issues. now, these are issues that can be addressed without in any way compromising the national security of the united states. understanding how certain words are interpreted tells us where the line is drawn, but that line wherever it is drawn is, in fact, relevant to whether the intent of congress is being fulfilled and whether the protection of citizens under the fourth amendment is indeed standing strong. an open and democratic society like ours should not be governed by secret laws, and judicial interpretations are as much a part of the law as the words that make up our statutes. the opinions of the fisa court are controlling. they do matter. when the law is kept secret, public debate, legislative intent, finding t
control debate pitted mostly rural americans against urban elites who sometimes fail to respect rural values. i ran for congress in a district with a strong second amendment tradition and i have been around guns my entire life. but i saw the knee-jerk extremism that the right wing caricature of gun control caused with extremist groups like the nra asking, well, what about guns in bars. if you don't support it, you're an enemy of the second amendment. what about guns in church, at the hospital. what about buying ten guns at once? democrats supporting any restrictions were assumed to support a complete ban on guns. we were coming to take your guns away. now, when a powerful interest group like then ra wins on an issue, they tend to go to such extremes in their victory they end up losing and balance is ultimately restored. this happened in the aborths debate where debates over partial birs apportion and parental notifications for 14-year-olds made democrats who opposed all abortion restrict n restrictions look extreme and republicans were able to use that to caricature us as pro abortio
to listen up. david k. johnson explains why you could be paying $8 for a gallon of milk if congress doesn't act. >>> welcome back, in the wake of >>> welcome back, in the wake of the newtown school shooting, another tragic incident began bringing the gun control debate front and center. william spangler lit his home on fire in a plot to murder first responders. when the volunteer fire department arrived spangler shot at firefighters from a ditch. he killed two firefighters and wounded two others before killing himself. his sister was believed to be found dead in the home. police believe he used a bushmaster .223 caliber rifle. the same gun used in the newtown shooting. >> people go out in the middle of the night to put out fires and don't expect to be shot and killed. >> you're telling me it's not a matter of common sense if you don't have the ability to shoot off 30 rounds without reloading that just possibly you could reduce the loss of life. adam lanza would not have been able to kill as many people as he did -- >> i don't buy your argument for a minute. >> not a single republican lawm
of legislation. democrats wanted that extra vote. if not for the so-called fiscal cliff debate they're trying to strike a deal on. that would be also on other legislation that would come up with 113th congress. democrats want to ensure they have 55 votes when the 113th congress begins on january 3rd. >> senior political editor mark murray for us on this thursday, appreciate it, sir. >> thank you, craig. >>> outrage of russian president vladimir putin's decision to sign a bill to block americans from adopting russian children and a video of a squarm bursting in a shopping mall. details on that story around the "news nation." [ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to
in some of the previous negotiations of congress and the kind of role he has played. almost all of these talks, whether it was about government shutdown in the spring of 2011 or the debt limit debate in the summer of 2011 or the payroll tax-cut debate last year, those negotiations started at a level between the president and speaker but always broke down at that level and that pushed to the senate where harry reid and mitch mcconnell had to figure something out and get enough votes for it so they could give some cover to the house republicans, who were joined by a large majority of house democrats to get something done. the idea that we have come to this state is not necessarily surprising. that it has taken us so long to get there has probably frustrated everyone who wanted to take a holiday break. if mitch mcconnell wants to play ball, and i think there's a role for him to do so. when you speak with aids from his office, they say we will get involved, but we would like to see some good faith offer from the majority leader. aides from his office. right now that process has not
live ph washington, thank you. gregg: as washington debates the fiscal cliff we are also days away from another financial crisis. the u.s. government is poised to hit its debt limit on monday. what happens if congress doesn't raise the debt sealing? douglas holtz ee eakin is a former director of the nonpartisan budget direction office and is president of american action firearm. thapblgs for being with us. what happens if they don't raise the ceiling? >> ultimately congress has to raise the ceiling. it's simply naive to believe you could ever put the level of spending kick quickly become to the level of revenues and not have to borrow some more. it doesn't have to happen until february or march. ment soak of the treasury has a lot of tools available to push off when you actually hit the debt limit. waoes going the's going to do that and run the usual bag of tricks to avoid the debt ceiling. gregg: timothy geithner can move money around between now and february. we don't really need to panic, do we? >> no, you don't need to panic. essentially the he secretary of the treasury will raid re
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)